Originally Posted by slaughters:I dislike brutality to animals solely for personal recognition and advancement.

Again, leather jackets. Coming from the opposite point of view, it seems very much like a double standard to abhor art made from animals, while not giving a toss about accessories made from animals.

Yeah, I'm a vegetarian, but if I'd start having seizures every time I hear of this kind of stuff, I'd also have to puke every time I put on my suede sneakers. Objecting to one but not the other just doesn't seem very logical. I don't object to my nifty sneakers, so I haven't the right to object to this artist's choice of material.

then let me explain one more time for you. you don't seem to have a problem with animals being killed for clothing as much as animals being killed for art. i never once said i was defending the artist. i was just curious about the double standard you're presenting. if you're so adamantly against killing animals for art, then why are you not as outraged with animals being killed for other forms of aesthetic value? read the posts before you put your foot in your mouth.
i don't hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin. i hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin, and then get riled up when an animal is killed for 'art'. once again, i'm not defending the artist. i'll say it again for you slaughters, i'm not defending the artist. i just think that the hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

Lets say nothing is art, because art is just a word. Now lets look at it and see what it is:

#1 A dead rabbit as a pot plant, okay i think that is messed up.
#2 A painting of a dead animal, okay
#3 A painting of a big mechanical robot harvesting humans, cool that sounds great.
#4 A 3d model of 3 bananas with legs, cute.
#5 A man dropped food on his floor and left it there for a couple of days. It got all crusty and smelled really bad. now he calls it art. Haha oh god what is that guys disorder

Hmm, art? what is art? nothing is art. Its just a stupid word of something you think is cool or special, and everyone got diffrent opinion. So dont even try saying someone elses stuff isn't art, you could say they are ****ed up but you shouldn't say it aint art.

Originally Posted by slaughters:Let me get this straight. Because I agree with you that killing animals for art is bad BUT because I don't fully agree with you (I enjoy a good steak now and then) ... you hate me.

i never agreed with you that killing animals for art is bad, because as meat eaters, we don't have the right to judge how other people use dead animals. i had a problem with the fact that you feel you can judge killing animals for one sort of pleasure as good, and killing animals for another sort of pleasure as bad. that's hypocrisy. that i hate. that is something everyone should hate.

Originally Posted by slaughters: I keep trying to talk about the artist. You seem more interested in attacking me.

again, you're judging the artist very subjectively, and i'm questioning how you can place that sort of absolute judgement on the artwork.

and if you read kargokultti's previous post, i don't think i'm the brick wall he was talking about. . .

Aren't most roadkills going to waste anyway.
Isn't the animal getting killed by a car a bigger problem than whatever someone does with the carcass? It's not like the world has a shortage of decaying organic matter...

I think it's tasteless. But I don't think it's wrong.

For the leather, I might not be informed properly but I believe the cow skin comes animal raised for meat. The more parts we use the better.

(as for the shark head, It could have washed ashore. With so many sharks caught, fins sliced off and thown back in, I could see that happening)

You got a point right there. Seems like I ought to have checked the site a bit more carefully.

Originally Posted by slaughters: I agree with Kargokultt when he said, "I think it's a brick wall we're facing here", so this is my last post in this thread.

Sorry, didn't mean to be a party pooper. I must say I've enjoyed this discussion immensely. The more people's views differ, the better the argument.

And yeah, hate's not the answer. Mild resentment sustains bickering much longer.

But I would like to point out that it seems to me that the don't-kill-animals-for-art party hasn't really backed their opinions with much else than, "Well, it's not a nice thing to do", "I don't like it" and "It's immoral". Repeating an opinion does nothing to explain it.

Originally Posted by jmBoekestein:There's no discussion then because the respect has left imho.

Curiouser and curiouser . Ah, respect towards the animals, right?

But wouldn't you admit that it can be discussed whether or not respect takes her leave also when you put a pig's butt thorugh a meat grinder, or only when you create art using questionable materials. The topic is of course art, but in this case, it is not easily separated from life.

Some peole have argued something like "we kill animals to eat, why not kill them to make art?"

For example, quoting nineinchneil:

"i never agreed with you that killing animals for art is bad, because as meat eaters, we don't have the right to judge how other people use dead animals. i had a problem with the fact that you feel you can judge killing animals for one sort of pleasure as good, and killing animals for another sort of pleasure as bad. that's hypocrisy. that i hate. that is something everyone should hate."

That IS hypocrisy.
We, as meat eaters, and long before we got our "inteligence", always killed animals for food, and later for clothing. NOT as "one sort of pleasure". Those are basic needs we have and need to fulfill. So we must kill animals to eat, to make clothes (using leather for coats, shoes, belts etc).
When we start killing animals for vanity (fur clothes, trophys, for fun), that IMHO is WRONG, and should not be accepted.
So, killing animals for art is not what I think of as something we REALLY NEED, or how can I put it another way, is something we can live without.
What if some crazy guy one day thinks something like: "I'm going to create the ULTIMATE art masterpiece. I'm going to extinct a specie. So he goes after the last examples of some endangered species, kills them all, documenting in some way the moment he kills the last one. Wow. That sure must be ART! :P".

as a meat-eater myself, i empathize with you, jpgargoyle. but let's get one thing straight; we DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE. yes, primitive man used to eat meat and wear animal skin, but we aren't a primitive species anymore. the point of evolution is to progress to the point where we are living with each other, not feeding on each other. and don't even try and tell me that leather coats, leather shoes, and leather belts, is a necessity to survive! that's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by jpgargoyle:What if some crazy guy one day thinks something like: "I'm going to create the ULTIMATE art masterpiece. I'm going to extinct a specie. So he goes after the last examples of some endangered species, kills them all, documenting in some way the moment he kills the last one. Wow. That sure must be ART! :P".
So for what you say, you find that acceptable no?

no it's not acceptable. it's not acceptable at all. because that would be horrible to me. but that DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE ART. do you know how many paintings there are of massacres on battlefields? or the portraits of mass murderers like hitler? or of hunters shooting animals? or of people/animals being killed or tortured in some way or another? they're all pretty gruesome, and hard to look at ('guernica' is an especially hard one for me to look at, because of the raw emotion in that piece), but they're also works of art. who's to say what's art or not? just because the content is evil, and distasteful doesn't take away it's artistic merit. why is this so hard to understand?

"but that DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE ART. do you know how many paintings there are of massacres on battlefields? or the portraits of mass murderers like hitler? or of hunters shooting animals? or of people/animals being killed or tortured in some way or another? they're all pretty gruesome, and hard to look at ('guernica' is an especially hard one for me to look at, because of the raw emotion in that piece), but they're also works of art. who's to say what's art or not? just because the content is evil, and distasteful doesn't take away it's artistic merit. why is this so hard to understand?
"
you sure make me think that you don't know nothing about art.
All those paintings about massacres on battlefields were not caused by the artist that painted the paint. That's different from killing animals to make "art"(or just making money with dead animals from weird people willing to buy dead animals)

Follow Us On:

The CGSociety

The CGSociety is the most respected and accessible global organization for creative digital artists. The CGS supports artists at every level by offering a range of services to connect, inform, educate and promote digital artists worldwide. More about us on TheArtSociety.com